> Note, I doubt that this is actually true, but I wanted to highlight your moral apriori claims as ridiculous.

You failed to do that:

You didn’t address the agency problem where the 15 chose to engage in risky behavior while that 1 was coerced into dying — and ignoring the role of agency in the Trolley Problem is amateur hour. The helmets didn’t kill anyone, their following choices while wearing helmets did; which is in contrast to mandating no helmet, that is directly responsible for a death.

What you did was make a ridiculous argument that ignored the crux of the issue and pretend that the other person was wrong.

They were not coerced into dying. I prefer fewer people dying personally, your mileage might vary.

All I can say is I am glad that the actual people making decisions seem to also prefer fewer people dying over non-coercion.

>They were not coerced into dying

Despite this bare denial, I believe "coerced into dying" to be an accurate description of someone coerced into not wearing a helmet dying of head injuries from an unavoidable accident

sorry, that's not a coercion I'm willing to make. First, do no harm. Come back when you've tried safer ways to reduce risky behavior.

I pretty clearly articulated exactly what was unconscionable:

> if even 1 incident occurs which was unavoidable by an unhelmeted cyclist which harms them more than they would have been harmed wearing a helmet, then the policy is unconscionable

if you can think of a scenario in which what I described as unconscionable happens, then I would find that scenario unconscionable.

> Do the other things to reduce risky behavior, certainly, but if this is an uncorrelated improvement I don't see why that wouldn't be worth taking.

whereas I DO see why such a helmet ban would be a risk not worth taking, it is at the top of this post.